Congress and the Administration Agree: the Government Can Indefinitely Detain US Citizens

I’ve got a long post mostly written on the debate between two awful positions on the detainee provisions in the Defense Authorization.

But let me make something clear. Both sides have already bought off on one principle: that the Administration can indefinitely detain US citizens.

Dianne Feinstein made this clear in her comments yesterday in the Senate (in which she was reading from a letter SJC and SSCI Democrats wrote).

Section 1031 needs to be reviewed to consider whether it is consistent with the September 18, 2001, authorization for use of military force, especially because it would authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial …..

And yet while in the rest of her speech, DiFi laid out problems she had with sections 1032 (mandating military detention in most cases), 1033 (requiring certification before DOD transfers detainees to a third country), and 1035 (giving DOD precedence in detainee decisions), she made not a peep objecting to (as opposed to raising cautions about) this ability to indefinitely detain American citizens.

In response to DiFi’s speech and the Administration’s veto threat, Carl Levin revealed that the Administration’s complaints about the language authorizing military detention don’t stem from any squeamishness about indefinitely detaining Americans. Indeed, as Levin made clear, the Administration asked that limitations on applying the section to Americans be taken out of the bill.

The committee accepted all of the Administration’s proposed changes to section 1031.  As the Administration has acknowledged, the provision does nothing more than codify existing law.  Indeed, as revised pursuant to Administration recommendations, the provision expressly “affirms” an authority that already exists.  The Supreme Court held in the Hamdi case that existing law authorizes the detention of American citizens under the law of war in the limited circumstances spelled out here, so this is nothing new.

The initial bill reported by the committee included language expressly precluding “the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.”  The Administration asked that this language be removed from the bill. [my emphasis]

And given that SASC already voted to support this section by significant margins, it appears clear it has plenty of support.

So make no mistake. As I’ll show in my longer post, there are clear differences between the two sides (though I find both sides problematic). But whether or not the government can indefinitely detain Americans is not one of them.

Update: I took out “militarily,” as 1032 exempts automatic military detention for US citizens.

Tweet about this on Twitter34Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook114Google+2Email to someone

14 Responses to Congress and the Administration Agree: the Government Can Indefinitely Detain US Citizens

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @davidcnswanson Cmon. They can be spooked by fancy refrigerators, or they can be torturing. This is a less dangerous hobby @rj_gallagher
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel You forgot your #NotTheOnion hash. RT @rj_gallagher: CIA freaking out about smart refrigerators: http://t.co/WubgFmvSLw
4mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @BernardKingIII No, it is a dagger. And might just move the needle to single payer, which they really wouldn't like.
6mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @armandodkos @radleybalko Works for me; certainly no good argument to the contrary.
8mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @BernardKingIII Well, I still think it will be reversed en banc, but yes, if not, then absolutely stayed.
10mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @BernardKingIII And, really, the Admin fix to the problem makes sense; hard to strip benefits already being received. Bet even AMK+JGR agree
15mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @gazoombo Seems to be a vendor-driven event.
16mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @radleybalko @armandodkos Perhaps we can all just agree politicians should read and understand bills before voting them into law.
18mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @gazoombo Tacos maybe?
19mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @BernardKingIII Agree. For a variety of reasons, still think ACA proponents win this ultimately, my pet peeve is them calling arg meritless
21mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @quinnnorton Was trying to figure out WTF that meant.
21mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @quinnnorton Hmm. Makes sense.
25mreplyretweetfavorite
November 2011
S M T W T F S
« Oct   Dec »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930